I can see you, Admiral!

[scaflight]

Cobra/Leatherneck,

 

You said briefly that jamming was introduced across the board for such enemy ships that would have them. What about harder countermeasures in the form of CIWS? Are you implementing those?

 

I ask because we saw the Rb-04 act realistically (according to RenHanxue) in the Grudge match by often going to the same target. In a world without CIWS, that is a bad thing and will give us incentive to not use the Swedish tactics properly. In a world WITH CIWS however, it might be prudent and even necessary, for a single rote's worth of Rb-04 to target the same ship.

 

[MBot]

The respective ships in DCS already have CWIS and will engage ASM. The tankers used in the Grudge Match obviously do not have them.

[scaflight]

The respective ships in DCS already have CWIS and will engage ASM. The tankers used in the Grudge Match obviously do not have them.

 

Ah I did not know this! Thanks a lot.

[WinterH]

One thing seems essential with Rb 04 antishipping :

 

Attacks should come from many directions, and aircraft firing the missiles from the same direction should at least have some decent seperation, so that the CIWS will not have too easy a job.

[MBot]

One thing seems essential with Rb 04 antishipping :

 

Attacks should come from many directions, and aircraft firing the missiles from the same direction should at least have some decent seperation, so that the CIWS will not have too easy a job.

 

I think that is debatable. CIWS are often distributed on ships to cover multiple sectors. Attacking from multiple directions might distribute the missiles over all CWIS mounts, while it would be desirable to saturate a single mount.

[near_blind]

I think that is debatable. CIWS are often distributed on ships to cover multiple sectors. Attacking from multiple directions might distribute the missiles over all CWIS mounts, while it would be desirable to saturate a single mount.

 

On the converse, If all threats are from a single bearing, the ship can maneuver to bring more weapon mounts and countermeasures to bare, as well as minimize it's aspect.

 

Also on older ships that don't use VLSs, it reduces the amount of missiles the ships SAM's can effectively engage as the launcher must physically pivot to engage new targets.

[emg]

^Depends on the design. With ships like the Soviet missile destroyers, if you minimize the aspect, you're also obscuring half of your gun CIWS and missile launchers. A Sovremenny can't point all its defenses in one direction.

[MBot]

On the converse, If all threats are from a single bearing, the ship can maneuver to bring more weapon mounts and countermeasures to bare, as well as minimize it's aspect.

 

Also on older ships that don't use VLSs, it reduces the amount of missiles the ships SAM's can effectively engage as the launcher must physically pivot to engage new targets.

 

Weapon and sensor mounts are usually distributed in such a way that they cannot all cover the same direction.

 

The Kashin class for example has a SA-N-1 mount forward and one aft. If you attack with half your missiles from the forward hemisphere and half from the rear, both launchers (and their fire control radar) can each engage 50% of the targets simultaneously. If you attack from one hemisphere only, only one launcher has to deal with all incoming threats.

[Angel101]

I´m scared about if all radar coding is internal and without use of ED SDK... sure when ED push a new patch with noticeable changes on the base code maybe that module can stop working.

 

This module will be more stable trought patches than the mig-21?

[BeastyBaiter]

It shouldn't matter too much tbh. If anything, it might be safer. Don't have to worry about ED fine tuning the F-18 radar and suddenly have the viggen's CTD the game.

[Hummingbird]

You guys should so do that EE Lightning! Man that Viggen radar looks great.

[Beamscanner]

Ah I did not know this! Thanks a lot.

 

Additionally, Point defense SAMs will engage PGMs under the right conditions. (I've seen the SA-15 and SA-19 do this ingame)

[Pikey]

I cannot get an SA-N-1 (or a SA3 Goa that I stuck onto a ship) to engage Harpoons or KHsixty-whatevers, not sure that massive two stage rocket would be capable of tracking them, but if it could I still do not forsee an AD screen turning flank on to engage Rb04 swarms, instead face the theat and minimise radar profile. I predict a lot of Rb04 kills on older ships.

 

I believe the Rb04 acted somewhat realistically given they cannot (?) talk to each other in this simulation and the weapon profile selected was 'first come first served target'. It is the tactics that were at fault in the grudge match for using them, instead of being traditional Swedish profile, I would have split the group in trail, glanced the ships perpendicular and turned into fire with a much greater lateral spread with the line of ships laterally spread also so that the Rb04 radars each picked out seperate closer targets. As an additional game gimmick I'd have lingered and split the shots as those ships sink unrealistically fast, so no need for Swedish swarm tactics. I noted the ship dispersal had changed from a line formation in the warmup video to a box, which hampered the performance here as the box "corner" was facing the threat vector. Shots at the box "face" would have gotten more natural dispersal.

 

To be fair it was a marketing excercise and LNS looked sexier for it, the way they did it and I get that, but the audience is sold Cobra, didn't need any more sexy. :)

 

Weapon and sensor mounts are usually distributed in such a way that they cannot all cover the same direction.

 

The Kashin class for example has a SA-N-1 mount forward and one aft. If you attack with half your missiles from the forward hemisphere and half from the rear, both launchers (and their fire control radar) can each engage 50% of the targets simultaneously. If you attack from one hemisphere only, only one launcher has to deal with all incoming threats.

[QuiGon]

You could also just use group attack mode.

[AdurianJ]

I cannot get an SA-N-1 (or a SA3 Goa that I stuck onto a ship) to engage Harpoons or KHsixty-whatevers, not sure that massive two stage rocket would be capable of tracking them, but if it could I still do not forsee an AD screen turning flank on to engage Rb04 swarms, instead face the theat and minimise radar profile. I predict a lot of Rb04 kills on older ships.

 

I believe the Rb04 acted somewhat realistically given they cannot (?) talk to each other in this simulation and the weapon profile selected was 'first come first served target'. It is the tactics that were at fault in the grudge match for using them, instead of being traditional Swedish profile, I would have split the group in trail, glanced the ships perpendicular and turned into fire with a much greater lateral spread with the line of ships laterally spread also so that the Rb04 radars each picked out seperate closer targets. As an additional game gimmick I'd have lingered and split the shots as those ships sink unrealistically fast, so no need for Swedish swarm tactics. I noted the ship dispersal had changed from a line formation in the warmup video to a box, which hampered the performance here as the box "corner" was facing the threat vector. Shots at the box "face" would have gotten more natural dispersal.

 

To be fair it was a marketing excercise and LNS looked sexier for it, the way they did it and I get that, but the audience is sold Cobra, didn't need any more sexy. :)

 

The lowest altitude of a Target for the SA-3 seems to be 100m which is way below where those sea skimmers fly. Even a more modern system like the SA-8 which was common in the Soviet fleet can only go down to 25m.

What's often the problem when engaging very-low flying targets is that the proximity fuze initiate on the ground return.

[Eldur]

As a SAAB car owner in a previous life, I can only guess that the radar was done that way just to be different!

 

I really don't know, though. As far as I know nothing else works this way - only the AJ 37.

 

The Swedes are just being 20% cooler. Isn't it great to be different?

 

 

Can't wait to get my hooves on that Wonderbolt soon™

[Enduro14]

So sorry to be all excited but when will some startup and operational hype videos be releasing? Hey i would truly understand not getting to them if this beautiful air frame releases this friday....??

[Pocket Sized]

So sorry to be all excited but when will some startup and operational hype videos be releasing? Hey i would truly understand not getting to them if this beautiful air frame releases this friday....??

 

Spitfire goes to early access on friday. I don't think they'd release two modules on the same day... Also it looks like the Viggen definitely still has work to be done on it.

[near_blind]

Weapon and sensor mounts are usually distributed in such a way that they cannot all cover the same direction.

 

The Kashin class for example has a SA-N-1 mount forward and one aft. If you attack with half your missiles from the forward hemisphere and half from the rear, both launchers (and their fire control radar) can each engage 50% of the targets simultaneously. If you attack from one hemisphere only, only one launcher has to deal with all incoming threats.

 

Valid, but what prevents the ship from maneuvering to unmask its other weapon mount to a single axis attack?

 

For example if an attack comes from the rear, what prevents the captain from turning to place the missile on his beam, and having both the forward and aft missile launchers engage? Mind you I'm not an expert on the Kashin, or really any of the 60s/early 70s Russian surface combatants.

[EasyEB]

Turning a ship to better deal with incoming missiles sounds like something out of World of Warships. Could something like that even be done in World of IRL?

[MBot]

EasyEB is right, detection times against sea skimmers are probably too low to allow for any maneuvering of the ship.

 

Anyhow, the Kashin Mod might be a good example to illustrate the problem:

 

 

Notice the 30mm CIWS mounts amidships, under the aft mast, two on each side. Attacking this ship from a single direction only will ensure that 50% of the CIWS mounts (those on the opposing side) will be unable to engage.

Edited December 13, 2016 by MBot

[near_blind]

Turning a ship to better deal with incoming missiles sounds like something out of World of Warships. Could something like that even be done in World of IRL?

 

We're not talking about dodging missiles, we're talking about orienting the ship to reduce exposure of vital areas to a threat while maximizing its ability to return fire.

 

EDIT: I can see I'm dragging the discussion OT, and that's not what I'm aiming for. I would point out I'm admittedly somewhat ignorant regarding soviet surface combatants of the era, and the capability of their SAM armament. I'm approaching this from the perspective of later US Standard equipped ships where the SAM is a much more potent determinant in the success or failure of an engagement. If you are down to CIWS during a massed ASM attack, you're already at a disadvantage.

Edited December 13, 2016 by near_blind

[MBot]

While it might not be precisely on topic, I think it is a fairly relevant question in relation to the Viggen.

 

If we are looking at Soviet ASM defense in the 1980s in the Baltic, CIWS is actually pretty insignificant, as few ships if any at all were equipped so (the Baltic fleet did not get the first line ships). The primary heavy air defense units of the fleet were 2-3 Kashin DDG with SA-N-1b SAM, whose anti-missile capability was rather poor (and it didn't have CIWS, unlike the Kashin Mod). The most potent escorts in the Baltic were the Krivak I/II FFG, with about a dozen units. The didn't have CIWS either but had a quite potent SAM system with the SA-N-4a/b.

 

The Krivaks also have the front-end arrangement with missile launchers and fire control radars. Attacking from multiple directions will not significantly complicate the air defense effort, as the missile launchers have to anyway rotate to 0 azimuth after each salvo to reload. Therefore, threats on multiple directions do not really cause any additional delays in orienting the launchers (and it is lightning quick anyway). An attack directly from the front or rear will mask one of the two Osa SAM-systems from engaging. Though it might be questionable if attacking from such a specific narrow direction is tactically viable, and whether the reduced radar signature of the target ship is not offsetting any benefit.

 

Generally speaking, chaff and jamming is probably the most important defensive measure by the generation of Soviet ships active in the Baltic in the 1980s.

Edited December 13, 2016 by MBot

[AdurianJ]

Attacking from multiple directions was something one did against a group of ships. That way the escorts cant be concentrated in one direction.

 

Also we've been discussing weapons mounts here but the main limiting factor is usually the number of fire control radars when a ship wants to engage multiple targets

[whiteladder]

Turning a ship to better deal with incoming missiles sounds like something out of World of Warships. Could something like that even be done in World of IRL?

 

This is a common tactic, and also something the RN has done in combat ( one of the few navies to face a antiship missiles in combat)

 

This is from the account of HMS Glamorgan in the Falklands being hit by an Exocet:

 

Before the missile impact, the ship was moving at high speed. After the ship executed a rapid turn away from the missile in the limited time available, a few seconds, the Exocet struck the port side adjacent to the hangar near the stern. The turn had prevented the missile from striking the ship's side perpendicularly and penetrating; instead it hit the deck coaming at an angle, near the port Seacat launcher, skidded on the deck, and exploded. This made a 10 by 15 feet (3.0 m × 4.6 m) hole in the hangar deck and a 5 by 4 feet (1.5 m × 1.2 m) hole in the galley area below, where a fire started.